Dead US Satellite Struck By Missile
- Thread starter senob44
- Start date
tartanterrier
Is somewhere outhere.
Re: Dead US Satellite Struck By Missle
That's that taken care of
That's that taken care of
member006
Closed Account
Re: Dead US Satellite Struck By Missle
Not so fast, they have announced that the threat of debris falling to earth is still there and it will continue to be watched. Heres another link for those interested.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23265613/
LL
That's that taken care of
Not so fast, they have announced that the threat of debris falling to earth is still there and it will continue to be watched. Heres another link for those interested.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23265613/
LL
Only been up there a year right ?...........Hmmmmmm
Vanilla Bear
Bears For Life
:sing: In The Navy....:sing:
Well Done! :thumbsup:
Well Done! :thumbsup:
Already an existing thread ...
There is already an existing thread here ...
Pentagon will blast crippled satellite http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=191994
Since this is my field of expertise, and I've worked on some of the components used in this system (and know many others who worked directly on the EKV), please read that information (which is all publicly available and verifiable) before making further assumptions.
Please do not add to what the article actually says.
This was a satellite re-entry. It was higher than the SM-3 altitude capability. It required a 3rd stage be added for the additional 50% capability. It was also completely unlike a missile defense intercept, we knew the exact trajectory before hand (and had an opportunity at multiple passes).
).
It is cheaper and much safer to just launch another spy satellite.
About the only thing I've seen repeatedly, and most of my former engineering colleagues have seen, is rhetoric. Technically, this is a 100% peaceful use of a technology never designed for it. It's actually kinda cool to have this capability now, which can be used by space agencies, or even other militaries that want something destroyed so it does not come down on others.
About the only thing you don't want to blow up is something with an RTG in it. Those will survive and stay intact after a crash, at least US, European and Japanese designs. The Russians have been guilty of some poor encasings on theirs though.
There is already an existing thread here ...
Pentagon will blast crippled satellite http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=191994
Since this is my field of expertise, and I've worked on some of the components used in this system (and know many others who worked directly on the EKV), please read that information (which is all publicly available and verifiable) before making further assumptions.
Okay, this is UTTER BULLSHIT! There is absolutely no "threat of debris," there is just "debris." There is always "debris."
Yes, because they want an exact number of particles and their lifespan. The initial debris cloud is far more contained than predicted. The new estimates show nearly all particles entering and burning up in the first 48 hours, and virtually all remaining within 40 days.
Apparently you didn't read it. Seriously. Or you "read into it."
Please do not add to what the article actually says.
Ahhh, no. Virtually everyone agrees the tank was going to survive. Larger satellites don't fully burn up on re-entry, and a good portion of them will come down.
Huh?
Ah, no. High school physics 101, the more surface area, the more heat transfer. It's estimated virtually nothing will not burn up now (we'll know more in a couple of days). It went off even far better than originally predicted.
Ah, no. The US tested it's first and last anti-sat weapon in the mid '80s. The Chinese didn't even tell anyone and blew up a large satellite at a stable orbit, so the junk is going to be around for decades. They also used proximity-fuse, not hit-to-kill, making it far worse and far less obliterated.
This was a satellite re-entry. It was higher than the SM-3 altitude capability. It required a 3rd stage be added for the additional 50% capability. It was also completely unlike a missile defense intercept, we knew the exact trajectory before hand (and had an opportunity at multiple passes).
Actually, this capability is very much wanted by the ESA, NASA and others. The capability to break up a satellite so it doesn't come down and strike the ground is something many have always wanted.
So does a STS launch. Seriously. They only go up and repair when it's worth repairing. This one was not. Some things can't be fixed in orbit and/or re-inserted. And STS is not the "most reliable/available" repair platform right now. NASA is not using it for anything other than completing the ISS and other duties it can't avoid -- let alone they needed to do that back in 2006 (when STS wasn't exactly being used much
).It is cheaper and much safer to just launch another spy satellite.
About the only thing I've seen repeatedly, and most of my former engineering colleagues have seen, is rhetoric. Technically, this is a 100% peaceful use of a technology never designed for it. It's actually kinda cool to have this capability now, which can be used by space agencies, or even other militaries that want something destroyed so it does not come down on others.
About the only thing you don't want to blow up is something with an RTG in it. Those will survive and stay intact after a crash, at least US, European and Japanese designs. The Russians have been guilty of some poor encasings on theirs though.
Legzman
what the fuck you lookin at?
AH! That makes sense! We're Americans we don't do things like that! That's just a silly question.
DrMotorcity
Don Trump calls me Pornography Man
E4!... Hit! You sunk my satellite!
That would just add weight and there would always be a chance that something would go wrong and it would destroy a piece of equipment costing millions of dollars to make and be hard to get back up there. Plus sooner or later some other entity would hack into the signal to activate and destroy it prematurely.
Similar threads
